The Tonse Alliance, a significant political coalition, plunged into open institutional conflict following a four-hour virtual meeting convened on January 6 by its Co-Chairperson, Prof. Danny Pule. This meeting led to extensive constitutional changes, the dissolution of the Patriotic Front's (PF) formal standing within the alliance, and the setting of January 2026 for the election of a new chairperson and presidential candidate.

Prof. Pule framed these drastic actions as necessary, asserting that Tonse had been 'held hostage' by the PF's ongoing court battles, internal factionalism, and the paralysis that ensued after the death of former President Edgar Lungu (ECL). The council, under Pule, resolved to exclusively recognize the 'ECL PF Political Movement,' a non-registered pressure group loyal to Lungu's legacy, while completely disowning the official PF party structure currently embroiled in litigation with Robert Chabinga. Pule explicitly stated that "The Tonse Alliance has been delayed, disorganised and made to look institutionally chaotic because of PF," arguing that this move was the only way to honor Lungu's supposed "Plan B" and political aspirations. Consequently, the PF was demoted from its previous role as an anchor party to an outsider, with its loyalists rebranded into a movement lacking legal standing but retaining symbolic and mobilization value.

Further sweeping resolutions from the meeting included the abolition of exclusivity regarding the presidency, thereby opening the 2026 presidential ticket to all council members, and the scheduling of a general congress within weeks. These decisions signaled a declaration of political urgency, but simultaneously initiated a political war within the alliance. The concept of an anchor party was revised downward, reducing the ECL PF Movement's council representation from 15 to seven. This redistribution of power favored founding and non-founding parties, as well as civil society groups, reshaping delegate numbers in preparation for the upcoming congress. Disciplinary authority was shifted from the spokesperson’s office to a legal chairperson, two new vice chairperson roles were established, and interim leadership was scrapped, with Pule assuming the role of caretaker chair. Dr. Chris Zumani Zimba was appointed as the official representative of the ECL PF Movement. In essence, Tonse’s internal organizational framework was completely rewritten in a single night.

The PF's response was immediate and fiercely condemnatory. Acting PF President and Tonse Chairperson Given Lubinda swiftly dismissed the January 6 meeting as "illegal, null and void," accusing Pule of malice, bad faith, and procedural subversion. The PF steadfastly maintained its position as the legitimate sponsor of Edgar Lungu into Tonse, asserting that it could not be erased by what it termed a 'rogue' virtual meeting that violated agreed-upon processes. Lubinda warned that "PF will not be reduced to a façade or treated as non-existent," insisting that any constitutional amendments could only be legitimately handled at a physical meeting, which was scheduled for January 20.

This profound clash exposes a deeper, inherent fracture within the Tonse Alliance. The alliance was never a unified party but rather a fragile coalition built primarily around one individual: Edgar Lungu. His death removed the unifying element that held together rival ambitions, unresolved mistrust, and competing interpretations of legitimacy. Pule’s camp argues that the alliance's survival hinges on speed, clarity, and decisiveness. Conversely, the PF contends that legality, proper procedure, and its historical centrality cannot be bypassed without irrevocably damaging the alliance's credibility. Both factions claim fidelity to Lungu's legacy, yet their interpretations are diametrically opposed, indicating that this is fundamentally a succession war cloaked in the guise of constitutional reform.

The political timing of this internal strife is brutal. With the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) actively consolidating its structures, expanding its constituencies, and quietly campaigning, the opposition’s largest coalition is publicly disintegrating. The Tonse Alliance now faces the risk of transforming into a courtroom battleground rather than an effective campaign machinery. Whether this dramatic shake-up will lead to genuine renewal or total fragmentation depends on whether the conflicting demands of legitimacy, unity, and urgency can be reconciled. As of now, the indications point towards an escalation of conflict rather than a settlement. What remains unequivocally clear is that the Tonse Alliance has transitioned from internal disagreement to overt institutional conflict. Once such a line is crossed in politics, outcomes are rarely negotiated; they are imposed. History demonstrates that political entities that expend their energy fighting themselves seldom survive the subsequent election.